'Listen, Non-Voter'

If You Reject the Corrupt Major Parties, Turn Out and Vote against Them

While all the familiar quadrennial calumnies ('spoiler!,' 'predator!,' 'foreign asset!,' etc.) are being flung at third-party voters (well, at Green Party voters, anyway) by upholders of, what is to them, a not-yet-unacceptably-evil-enough corporate-militarist authoritarian status quo, there remains an area of difference in political opinion that, however much itself a recurring feature of U.S. elections, has received far less attention -- that between such outside-the-corporate-duopoly voters and those who opt not to vote at all.  Here I am referring not to a simple lack of motivation to take part in an election, but rather to the deliberate, self-conscious practice of such non-participation, in accordance with the view that it is somehow strategic -- a means of helping to erode the system's legitimacy and thereby open the way to something better.  From this perspective, third-party voters appear as dupes, effectively propping up the corporate-owned system they claim to want to change.  But to the familiar adage -- often attributed (or perhaps misattributed) to Mark Twain -- rendered alternately as, 'If voting could change the system, it would be illegal,' or 'If voting could change anything, they wouldn't let us do it,' there needs to be added an update:  If voting for non-corporate alternative candidates wouldn't affect anything, the powers-that-be wouldn't go to such lengths to discourage or outright prevent us from doing so.

The challenge for the U.S. ruling class and its corporate 'two-party' system has been how to continue to receive public assent -- or at least the appearance thereof -- for policy agendas that do not serve, or are even contrary to, the interests of a wide majority of that same public. As elections are meant to establish or reaffirm the legitimacy of the exercise of power in a political system, a ruling class will, accordingly, be especially keen and persistent in its efforts to ensure the public's conformity to the status quo in its electoral behavior.  In the U.S., the system has specifically depended on two types of such conforming behavior: 1) Voting for either of the corporate-owned parties (both with track records of carrying forward those aforementioned policy agendas); or 2) not voting at all.  Note that in neither case does the motive behind the behavior have any bearing on its practical effect -- the status quo is upheld just as well regardless of the voters' motives.  In the latter case, for example, even if the vote-abstention is motivated by a desire to reject the system, it carries no weight in that regard.  To the contrary, the practical effect of mass electoral abstention has instead simply been to signal indifference to the outcome, and thereby acquiescence to and acceptance of that system.  Lowered voter turnout in an election cycle does nothing to diminish the ability of governments to go on enacting corporate-friendly policies.

How convenient it has been to the powers-that-be in the U.S., then, that 1) and 2) together easily comprise the most widely practiced electoral behaviors.  What proponents of non-voting typically overlook is that it is a non-sequitur to proceed from the proposition that, 'Elections won't get us what we want' to the conclusion that, 'Elections don't matter.'  When it comes to accounting for the regular legitimation of a system that has increasingly worked against the interests of the majority of the population, electoral behavior (which includes mass absenteeism) absolutely has mattered, and does matter -- in a NEGATIVE way!!  It has been indispensable in helping the powers-that-be carry out their regular legitimation exercise in as stage-managed and non-threatening (to them) a way as possible; to keep their smoke-and-mirrors in place and enshroud themselves with an aura of permanence and invincibility.

On the other hand, it also doesn't follow that any and all electoral behavior would have this effect, and would be met with the same level of acceptance by the ruling class and its corporate-party and media mouthpieces.  If you want an indication of how they truly don't want the public to act, observe what makes such figures most livid.  Duopoly voting and high levels of abstention? -- those they can manage (even the continued support for Trump, however much the pundits might audibly fret over it, can be used to further polarize the public along lines that don't threaten ruling-class interests).  But present them with even a slight uptick in support for non-corporate parties and candidates running on pro-worker and anti-militarist policies, and just watch them go ballistic!!  The trashing of Ralph Nader after 2000, or of Jill Stein after 2016, gives you an indication of how discombobulated the guardians of overripe late-stage capitalism would become were even more of the public to engage in such electoral behavior.

While a third-party vote that stays in low single-digits will make for a convenient scapegoat for anything the punditocracy doesn't like about the results, a third-party vote that is increasing despite all their attempts to discourage such an outcome presents them with a storyline they would have a much harder time spinning, the more so the higher the vote share for that party.  And meanwhile, it would give the wider public a sense that maybe the establishment media don't define the limits of the possible after all.  In what other ways might we start seeing beyond such limits and acting on our own?  They're not anxious for us to find out.  Bottom line -- it's much better (once again in 2024) to vote for Jill Stein than to stay home or leave the president line blank.

At this point in the argument, one encounters further objections; which likewise reveal themselves to be non-sequiturs -- e.g., proceeding from:

'Even if such parties got enough voter support, they wouldn't be allowed to enact anything, or maybe even to take power;'

OR from:

'Increased vote totals for such parties still won't teach the incumbents a lesson;'

to:

'There's no point in voting for such parties and candidates.'

That conclusion doesn't follow, since, if there were no point, the powers-that-be wouldn't get so apoplectic the more people do it.

So what is that point then (which at least some of the upholders of the status quo are keenly aware of, much as they and their mouthpieces try to divert our attention from it)?  Here it is important to take into account how altered the entire political landscape has become in the neoliberal era; the central dogma of which is, to quote Thatcher, 'there is no alternative' -- corporate power is here to stay, and nothing must be allowed to induce either of the ruling-class parties to break from their rich donors by trying to respond to pressures from below.  This is why -- in contrast to earlier eras in American history, when the idea behind third-party campaigns was indeed to get the major parties to adopt new policy positions or risk being displaced -- media coverage of third-party campaigns nowadays, when it's permitted at all, hardly has anything to say about the policy differences put forward by those campaigns, but rather is almost entirely concerned with the anticipated impact on the major-party candidates' shares of the vote (in this connection, we need to appreciate how crucial it was for the establishment, in its further pursuit of neoliberal and neocon goals, that its vitriolic scapegoating of Nader after 2000 -- which completely bypassed the policy positions he was running on -- succeeded so thoroughly).

And so, in this current context, the point of third-party voting isn't to put good policies in power under the existing system (it wouldn't be allowed).  Nor to 'teach' the incumbents a 'lesson' (they have no incentive, under the system they serve, to 'learn,' let alone apply, any such 'lessons').  Rather, it is to compel the powers-that-be to take steps that they would rather not have to take; to draw them further out from behind the scenes and more into the open than they're accustomed to being.  The more additional steps they're forced to take, the more likely they are to make missteps, and the more the mask falls away; leading to an overall environment -- in which common class interests and the impermanence and weaknesses of the current governing system are more apparent to more people -- that is more conducive for pro-worker agendas and other, non-electoral approaches to take root and grow.